ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Gitin 82
GITIN 82 - Dedicated by Seth and Sheila Jutan of Atlanta, Georgia, in memory
of Sheila's grandfather, Mr. Bernie Slotin (Dov Ber ben Moshe Mordechai
z'l), who passed away on Chol ha'Moed Pesach (18 Nisan 5759 - April 4,
(a) Abaye proves from the current Beraisa ...
***** Hadran Alach ha'Zorek *****
1. ... that the relative is permitted to sign anywhere on the Sh'tar (at the
beginning, in the middle or at the end) - since the Tana did not restrict
his signature to any particular place.
(b) When a Get Kere'ach came before Rebbi Ami (or Rebbi Yanai) - he
instructed the Sofer to go and find a slave in the street to sign on the
remaining fold (like ben Nannes).
2. ... that one is permitted to substantiate a Get Mekushar from any three
of the witnesses, even if they did not sign consecutively - because had they
needed to be consecutive, why did the Tana not arrange for one Pasul witness
to sign at the beginning, in the middle or at the end of each set of three
witnesses, in which case there would never be more than one Pasul witness in
any group of three, and there would be no reason not to permit more than one
Pasul witness to sign on a Get Kere'ach.
***** Perek ha'Megaresh *****
(a) Rebbi Eliezer validates the divorce in a case where the husband says to
his wife 'You are permitted to everyone except so-and-so'. The Chachamim
render it invalid.
(b) He says it - whilst handing the Get to her.
(c) In the event that he did say it - he must take the Get back and gives it
to her again.
(d) If he wrote this wording in the Get - it is Pasul, even if he
subsequently erased it.
(a) We ask whether 'Ela li'P'loni' (by which Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan
argue) is a Lashon of 'Chutz' or of 'al-M'nas'. If it is a Lashon of ...
1. ... 'Chutz', then by 'al-M'nas' - the Rabbanan will agree with Rebbi
Eliezer because (unlike Chutz, which is a Shiyur [a preclusion]) 'al-M'nas'
is a regular condition.
(b) The Torah writes in Metzora "ve'Nasati Nega Tzora'as be'Veis Eretz
Achuzaschem". We ...
2. ... 'al-M'nas', then by 'Chutz' - Rebbi Eliezer will agree with the
Rabbanan (because he only permits a Lashon of T'nai, but not one of Shiyur).
1. ... learn from there - that all Jewish houses are subject to Tum'as
(c) Ravina proves from here that, in the Mishnah in Nega'im 'Kol ha'Batim
Mitam'in bi'Nega'im Ela shel Ovdei Kochavim' - 'Ela' must mean Chutz (a
Shiyur), and not a T'nai.
2. ... infer from there - that all houses belonging to Nochrim are not.
(a) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah cannot be the author of our Mishnah (as we
shall now see)?
(b) In connection with the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and the
Chachamim, Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah says - that ...
1. ... in the case of 'Harei At Muteres le'Chol Adam Chutz mi'P'loni' - even
Rebbi Eliezer will agree that she is not divorced (because it is a Shiyur).
(c) According to ...
2. ... in the case of 'Harei At Muteres le'Chol Adam al'M'nas she'Lo Tinas'i
li'P'loni' - Rebbi Eliezer permits her to everyone except for that man,
whereas the Chachamim declare the Get invalid.
1. ... Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, the Chachamim differentiate between this
latter case, and any other T'nai regarding Gitin, which is effective -
because by any other T'nai, the Get is total, whereas in this case, he has
precluded someone from the Heter of the Get (albeit via a T'nai and not via
(d) The Chachamim explain this Pasuk to mean - that she went and married one
of any men.
2. ... the Tana of our Mishnah, Rebbi Yanai quoting a certain Zakein, Rebbi
Eliezer extrapolates his leniency from the Pasuk "ve'Yatz'ah ve'Haysah
le'Ish Acher" - which implies that his wife is divorced even if the divorce
only permitted her to one man.
(a) Rebbi Yochanan extrapolates from "ve'Ishah Gerushah me'Iyshah Lo
Yikachu" what Rebbi Yanai extrapolated from "ve'Yatz'ah ve'Haysah le'Ish
Acher" - because it implies that even though she is only divorced from
husband, and not permitted to everyone else, she is nevertheless considered
(b) In spite of this Pasuk - the Rabbanan decline to learn like Rebbi
Eliezer, because the Pasuk in Emor is referring to Kohanim, who have many
extra Mitzvos, and from whom one cannot therefore extrapolate Chumros
regarding other people.
(a) Rebbi Aba ask whether we can extend the current Din of Gerushin to
Kidushin - where he said to the woman 'Hiskadshi Li Le'aser le'Chol Adam
(b) He suggests that even Rebbi Eliezer may well restrict his lenient ruling
here to Get, because of the Pesukim that we quoted, whereas there are no
Pesukim by Kidushin. Nevertheless, he might well extend it to Kidushin -
because of the Hekesh "ve'Yatz'ah ve'Haysah" which is used to learn various
Dinim of Kidushin from Gitin, and vice-versa.
(c) The Rabbanan too, might extend their stringent ruling to Kidushin
because of the same Hekesh. On the other hand, they might be more lenient by
Kidushin than by Get - because Kidushin does not require "Kerisus", as Gitin
(d) Rebbi Aba's conclusion is - that both Rebbi Eliezer and the Chachamim
will Darshen "ve'Yatz'ah ve'Haysah" (the former, le'Kula, the latter,
(a) Assuming that we hold like Rebbi Aba, if Reuven betrothed a woman 'Chutz
mi'Shimon' (his brother), and Shimon betrothed her 'Chutz me'Reuven', why
might we have thought that Levi their brother cannot perform Yibum - because
it appears to be a case of 'Eishes Sh'nei ha'Meisim'.
(b) Abaye however, permits him to do so - due to the fact that, whereas
Reuven's Kidushin are effective inasmuch as it forbade the woman on the rest
of the world, Shimon's, which does not affect her at all, is not effective.
(c) We find a case of Eishes Sh'nei Meisim according to Rebbi Aba - in a
case where Reuven betrothed a woman 'Chutz mi'Shimon' (his brother), and
Shimon betrothed her S'tam, in which case his Kidushin is effective because
it forbids the woman on Reuven, and rendering her 'Eishes Sh'nei Meisim'.
(a) Abaye asks what the Din will be if someone divorced his wife 'le'Chol
Adam Chutz me'Reuven and Shimon' and then, before handing her the Get, he
said 'li'Reuven ve'Shimon' - whether he finally includes Reuven and Shimon
in the Heter for her to marry, or whether he now means to permit Reuven and
Shimon but to forbid the rest of the world.
(b) Based on the first side of the She'eilah, we ask what the Din will be if
he later mentioned Reuven but not Shimon. Even if he meant to include Shimon
as well, he might nevertheless have mentioned only Reuven, because he was
the first of the pair that he precluded the first time.
(c) If he meant specifically Reuven and not Shimon, we ask what the Din will
then be if he only mentioned Shimon. We think that 'Shimon' might be better
than 'Reuven' in this regard - beaus he was the one that he mentioned last
the first time.
(a) Assuming that Shimon, like Reuven, is specific, Rav Ashi thinks that
perhaps 'Af Shimon' is better than just Shimon, because he means to say not
only Reuven, but Shimon too. Alternatively, 'Af Shimon' may be no different
than 'Shimon' - because it might be referring to the rest of the world, to
whom he permitted her the first time (but not to Reuven).
(b) We conclude 'Teiku'.